mohitagw15856/vendor-evaluation
skills/vendor-evaluation/SKILL.md
Create a structured vendor evaluation framework for any procurement decision. Use when asked to evaluate vendors, compare suppliers, run an RFP scoring process, or assess a software or service provider. Produces a weighted scorecard, evaluation criteria, and recommendation framework.
$ install --global
skillsauthnpx skillsauth add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills vendor-evaluationInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
Security Scan Results
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
3
Scanners Passed
9
Scanners in report
Clean
TrivyContainer and dependency vulnerability scanner
95%
Clean
SemgrepStatic code analysis for vulnerabilities
95%
Clean
mcp-scan (Snyk)Model Context Protocol security validation
95%
Skipped
Snyk (dep)Open source security scanning
50%
Skipped
Socket.devSupply chain security analysis
50%
Skipped
VirusTotalMulti-engine malware detection
50%
Skipped
CrowdStrikeAdvanced threat intelligence
50%
Skipped
OSV-ScannerOpen Source Vulnerability database check
50%
Skipped
OWASP Dep-Check
50%
Last scanned: Apr 22, 2026, 5:28 PM87.0s1 file scanned
SKILL.md
- name:
- vendor-evaluation
- description:
- Create a structured vendor evaluation framework for any procurement decision. Use when asked to evaluate vendors, compare suppliers, run an RFP scoring process, or assess a software or service provider. Produces a weighted scorecard, evaluation criteria, and recommendation framework.
Vendor Evaluation Skill
Produces a structured vendor evaluation framework — from defining criteria through to a scored comparison and recommendation.
Required Inputs
- What you are procuring
- Vendors being evaluated (minimum 2)
- Key decision criteria (if known)
- Decision makers
- Budget range
- Timeline to decide
Output Structure
1. Evaluation Criteria and Weights
| Category | Weight | Rationale | |---|---|---| | Functional fit | [%] | Does it do what we need? | | Commercial terms | [%] | Price, flexibility, payment | | Implementation | [%] | How hard to get started? | | Support and SLA | [%] | What happens when things go wrong? | | Security and compliance | [%] | Meets regulatory requirements? | | Vendor stability | [%] | Will this company exist in 3 years? | | References | [%] | Who else uses this? |
Weights must total 100%.
2. Scoring Rubric
- 5: Exceeds requirements — clear best-in-class
- 4: Meets requirements — fully satisfies with minor gaps
- 3: Partially meets — notable gaps requiring workarounds
- 2: Significant gaps — would require workarounds
- 1: Does not meet — cannot satisfy requirement
3. Vendor Scorecard
| Criterion | Weight | [Vendor A] | Weighted | [Vendor B] | Weighted | [Vendor C] | Weighted | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | Functional fit | [%] | /5 | | /5 | | /5 | | | [Continue...] | | | | | | | | | Total | 100% | | /5 | | /5 | | /5 |
4. Key Questions for Every Vendor
Functional: Walk through [most critical use case]. What can your product not do that customers ask for? Commercial: What is included vs add-ons? Contract minimum term and notice period? Price protection at renewal? Implementation: Typical implementation for our size? What do you need from our team? Support: SLA for critical issues? Support included vs charged extra? Security: ISO 27001 / SOC 2 certified? Where is data stored? Breach notification process?
5. Reference Check Questions
- How long using [vendor]? Implementation surprises? Support responsiveness? One thing you wish you had known? Would you choose them again?
6. Recommendation
Recommended vendor: [Name] | Score: [X/5] Rationale: [Specific strengths that matter for this decision] Key risks: [Risk and mitigation] Conditions: [Contract terms to negotiate before signing] Runner-up: [Vendor and why they lost]
Quality Checks
- [ ] Evaluation criteria weights total 100%
- [ ] Scoring rubric is defined before scoring vendors (not post-hoc)
- [ ] Reference check questions are included
- [ ] Recommendation includes risks and conditions, not just a winner
- [ ] Runner-up rationale explains why they lost (enables future conversations)
- [ ] Contract terms to negotiate are specified
Example Trigger Phrases
- "Help me evaluate vendors for [procurement]"
- "Create a vendor scorecard for [software/service]"
- "Compare [Vendor A] vs [Vendor B] for [use case]"
Related Skills
mohitagw15856/competitor-signal-tracker
development
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Analyse competitor moves and translate them into strategic implications for your product roadmap. Use when a competitor announces a new feature, pricing change, partnership, or strategic shift, or when producing a periodic competitive intelligence report. Produces a categorised signal analysis with reactive-vs-proactive assessment, threat ratings, specific roadmap implications, and recommended responses with owners.
951SKILL.mdUpdated Apr 21, 2026
mohitagw15856/community-management-playbook
development
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Build a community management playbook for a brand's social media channels. Use when asked to create guidelines for managing comments, DMs, and community interactions, define a moderation policy, or build response frameworks for social media community managers. Produces a complete playbook with response templates, escalation paths, moderation rules, and tone guidelines.
946SKILL.mdUpdated May 28, 2026
mohitagw15856/claude-superpowers
development
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Activate a 4-stage coding discipline framework that forces Claude to plan before coding, isolate changes on a branch, write tests first, and self-review output twice before presenting it. Use when starting a complex coding task, when past Claude sessions produced broken first drafts, or when you want to prevent rework cycles. Produces a confirmed written plan, isolated feature branch, test-first implementation, and a double-reviewed output with a correctness and code-quality checklist.
946SKILL.mdUpdated May 28, 2026
mohitagw15856/aeo-optimizer
development
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Optimize an article for Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) — restructuring content so AI engines like ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Claude can extract, quote, and cite it. Rewrites headings as questions, drops 50-80 word answer capsules, audits paragraph length, and flags trust signals. Use when asked to AEO-optimize, make content AI-readable, improve AI citation chances, or adapt an article for answer engines.
946SKILL.mdUpdated May 28, 2026